Information and communication technologies (ICTs) afford new possibilities for complex interactions among young people. An Internet user can be both a consumer (receiver) and a producer (sender) of mediated communication, asynchronously or simultaneously—such as someone who both uploads and watches video clips on YouTube (von Feilitzen, 2009). “And between these two extremes—the reception and sender roles— the user can be interacting or participating to different extents, for example, in games and in communities owned, maintained and copywrited by someone else” (von Feilitzen, 2009, p. 36). Communication and socializing in virtual online and real offline life through ICTs provides new dimensions to young peoples’ “identity experiments and identity formation” (p. 38). As discussed by Wellman (2001), the “social affordances of computerized communication networks” provide youth with many possibilities for new forms of production and consumption of violence in and through media technology. In this Commentary we aim to outline some important, yet relatively underdeveloped, aspects of research that connect new media, violence, and young people.

The place of ecological and environmental concerns have not usually been at the centre of debates and analyses of men, masculinities, and global and transnational processes of power, even though men and masculinities have played a key role in environmental damage. Accordingly, there is an urgent need for more research, analysis and action on ecological and environmental questions, ‘green’ issues, sustainability, and climate change, and how these link to men and masculinities. Against this background, this chapter addresses sustainability in relation to intersections of men and the environment, and with emphasis on movements and transport futures. The current transport system not only supports and enacts the predominant global form of ‘quasi-private’ mobility that subordinates other less resource intense means of movement, it also causes damaging effects on the environment locally and globally. Central actors are to an overwhelmingly degree men of power, and men that dominate andcontrol its interlinked centres, such as the auto-, oil-and road industry. However, while the automobile and automobility have changed the world, self-driving cars and related automations are imagined as the next major transportation technology revolution. In the context of automated transport futures, the balance of power between state bodies, the auto-industry and power enactments by individual men, are likely to change.

Gender relations have increasingly changed throughout the past decades, and European gender politics have productively accompanied these improvements. Still Europe is far from being a gender-equal society.

For a long period gender equality policies have been contextualised mainly as a ’women’s issue’ – as women have been the driving force behind gender equality strategies and have been seen as the only ones who benefit from a more equal society. Men as the ‘other gender’ have been taken less into account in the context of gender equality. In the last decade, however, men and masculinities have increasingly become subjects of studies and gender policies in the EU. Under EU presidency, conferences on men, masculinities and equality took place in Sweden (2001) and Finland (2006). The Roadmap for equality between women and men 2006-20101 specifically encouraged men to take up care responsibilities and to share leave entitlements with women. A horizontal priority on gender roles including the need for involvement of men in gender equality policies and addressing inequalities affecting men, such as early school leaving, literacy and occupational health, is present in the current European Commission's Strategy for Equality between Women and Men (2010-2015)2. Additionally, strategies like gender mainstreaming seem to have created an initial awareness of the issue of men in gender equality and the establishment of some pathways towards institutional practice. Therefore, contemporary gender equality strategies as well as scientific studies should involve both men and women and take into account analysis of the role of both genders in

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the process of participating in a long-term collective memory work group of older men, focusing on the making/unmaking of older men and masculinities, and the potential of memory work with older men.

Design/methodology/approach: Participant review and reflection on collective memory work with a group of older men.

Findings: Collective memory work provides a novel way to explore ageing, gendering, men, and masculinities. Its potential for working with older men is examined critically in relation to gender politics, power and (in)equalities, interconnections and contradictions of men’s ageing and gendering, the personal and the political, as well as working with older men more generally, including those in transition and crisis.

Originality/value: There is little previous writing on this approach to ageing, men, and masculinities. The paper aims to stimulate wider applications of this approach.

Men’s Stories for a Change records and analyses stories written by a group of older men who met over thirteen years to share memories about ageing and masculinity. So here there are stories of love and sex, bodily change, crisis and disturbance, politics and power, struggles with violent feelings and action, work, sport, clothes, peeing, hair, and hairlessness. These men share a view of manhood, gender, and ageing that, while critical of dominant frames and inspired by feminist politics, is optimistic without underestimating the challenges of older age and old age, including the approach to the end of life. They see ageing as an opportunity for personal and social and, indeed, political change, for dealing with longstanding issues, especially around gender and power, and as a time of innovating too. This project aims to help, if only in some small way, in opening up these issues, freeing up in a profeminist direction the voices of other men individually or collectively, ageing or otherwise.

The authors have all been involved in some kind of men’s anti-sexist, profeminist politics, and/or men’s personal development work, along with other personal and political activism in such arenas as anti-nuclear, anti-racism, green, left, socialist, and peace politics over the years. Using the methods of memory work, the writers are both subjects and objects; the text cuts across that division too. Similarly, this volume can be located in various traditions, genres, and forms of writing. This is a project that is both finished and unfinished.

Sociological research, influenced by feminist and other critical perspectives, has noted how men’s emotional inexpressiveness was influenced, and supported, by patriarchal privilege. Such approaches have argued that ‘inexpression’ needs to be broken down in order to build gender equality and improve men’s own wellbeing. Emerging research has, however, challenged the argument that men are ‘emotionally inexpressive’ on two main premises: that, as a result of feminist critiques, many men now practise ‘softer’ or ‘more emotional’ forms of masculinity; second, that emotions always influence social action and so need to be better incorporated into sociological accounts of men’s behaviour. Yet these approaches entail some conceptual confusion as to what emotions are, how they link to social action and whether men’s emotions are inherently transformative for gender relations. This article first details how emotions and masculinity have been theorized in feminist-inspired approaches. It outlines recent work on emotions, men and masculinities before arguing for an understanding of emotions that engages with both physiologically grounded and postconstructionist debates. It finally suggests incorporating a material-discursive approach to men’s emotions, through feminist work on affect, which is attentive to the political dimensions of ‘increasing emotionality’ in order to contribute to a developing field of sociological research.

In his (1976) article, The Inexpressive Male: Tragedy or Sexual Politics? Sattel made the case that men’s relative lack of emotional expression emerged as a direct result of, and helped to sustain, men’s social privilege. Feminist and profeminist campaigners have (rightly) cited an increasing understanding of men’s emotional lives, and getting men to understand their own emotions, as central to any project addressing gender inequality. Some scholars within Critical studies on Men and Masculinities (CSMM), too, have often made the case that men need to become ‘more emotional’.

Various authors have documented empirical research that argues, as a result of feminist gains, men are gradually getting ‘more in touch’ with their emotions, leading to a ‘softening’ of masculinity. There is a problem, however, with narratives around increasingly ‘more emotional’ men. These often fail to engage with literature on emotions and historical precedents of men being valued for displays of ‘authentic’ emotions - through music for instance – which have often supported privilege. In addition, assuming that men’s emotions are inherently gender-progressive, ignores more sinister examples of men’s rights activism, violence and online misogyny.

This paper argues for the need to engage critically with how we think about both emotions and a history of emotions, in relation to CSMM. Considering how emotions are put into language, as well as the mechanisms by which emotions are identified and understood, have an impact on how emotions and ‘emotional’ behaviour are characterized in both research and everyday life. Crucially, it is important to retain a focus on the embodied aspects of experience. We suggest distinguishing between emotions, affect and kindred concepts as a productive way to approach issues of power and embodied experience in CSMM. Focusing on these areas, this paper aims to contribute a critical analysis on a developing and much-needed area of research.

This article addresses some aspects of the “Man Question” in feminism, by way of the analysis ofmen’s diverse gender-conscious positionings in relation to gender, gender equality and feminism. Itbuilds on earlier work, making use of theoretical models in feminist literature combined with themicro-sociological concept of passing. Consideration is also given to men’s non-gender-consciouspositionings. The article is primarily concerned with the theoretical and empirical complexities,contradictions and ambiguities of men’s positionings, as when they are self-defined as “feminists” (orsimilar identifications) in radical or deconstructive ways. In this, a Swedish interview data is used.Sweden is considered particularly interesting, with a qualified societal consensus on gender equalityand a broadly positive place accorded to men’s relations with feminism. The authors argue in the finalsection that there is a need to further dialogue between analyses of men/masculinities and themultidimensionality of feminisms, as well as a need for more empirical studies of men’s different(pro)feminist positionings in order to elaborate the theoretical implications of different socialcontexts. The framing presented seeks to provide greater possibilities for such complex, nuanced andsituated understandings of men’s relation to feminism, theoretically, analytically and politically.

This article addresses some aspects of the 'Man Question' in feminism, by way of the analysis of men's diverse gender-conscious positionings in relation to gender, gender equality and feminism. It builds on earlier work, making use of theoretical models in feminist literature combined with the micro-sociological concept of passing. The article is primarily concerned with the theoretical and empirical complexities, contradictions and ambiguities of men's positionings, as when they are self-defined as 'feminists' (or similar identifications) in radical or deconstructive ways. In this, Swedish interview data are used. Sweden is considered particularly interesting, with a qualified societal consensus on gender equality and a broadly positive place accorded to men's relations with feminism. The authors argue in the final section that there is a need to further dialogue between analyses of men/masculinities and the multidimensionality of feminisms, as well as a need for more empirical studies of men's different (pro) feminist positionings in order to elaborate the theoretical implications of different social contexts. The framing presented seeks to provide greater possibilities for such complex, nuanced and situated understandings of men's relation to feminism, theoretically, analytically and politically.

School of Health and Social Care, University of Derby, Derby, UK; School of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine, UK.

Hearn, Jeff

Örebro universitet, Institutionen för humaniora, utbildnings- och samhällsvetenskap. Department of Management and Organisation, Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland; Institute for Social and Health Studies, University of South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Revenge pornography (hereafter, revenge porn) is the online, sometimes offline, non-consensual distribution or sharing, of explicit images of someone else by ex-partners, partners, others or hackers seeking revenge or entertainment – also referred to as non-consensual pornography. The vast majority of revenge porn is committed by men on women ex-partners. In this paper, we discursively analyse men’s electronic texts accompanying their posting of explicit images on arguably the most popular revenge porn-specific website MyEx.com. Situating our analysis as a contemporary form of online gendered violence and abuse, we show the complex ways in which manhood acts are invoked by men to account for their practices. The impacts on victims/survivors and possible interventions are also discussed.

This article presents a multi-faceted power analysis of men's violence to known women, by way of assessing two main perspectives on research in men and masculinities: first, that founded on hegemonic masculinity, and, second, that based on the hegemony of men. Each perspective is interrogated in terms of understandings of men's violence to known women. These approaches are articulated in relation to empirical research, and conceptual and theoretical analysis. Thus this article addresses to what extent hegemonic masculinity and the hegemony of men, respectively, are useful concepts for explaining and engaging with men's violence to known women? The article concludes with discussion of more general implications of this analysis.

This article focuses mainly on men, masculinities, and leadership, though connections with management are also considered. This emphasis is partly because there has been more critical attention to the gendering of men and masculinities in management than the more specific area of leadership. Following discussion of the broad fields of, first, organization, leadership, and management, and, second, gendering and non-gendering, a personal reflection on this area is used as a prelude to examining recent developments in Critical Studies on men and masculinities. This is followed by discussion of three neglected aspects or absences: gender and intersectionalities; localization and transnationalization; and embodiment and virtualization. The article concludes with remarks on the importance of the relations of theory and practice.

May I start with two observations? First, men’s relations to feminism are problematic—there is always a gap, a gap between men and feminism; second, the gendering of men and masculinities is now recognised. There are several challenges here. The gender challenge concerns how to move from the presumed "genderlessness" of men towards the gender-consciousness of being a man/men. Another challenge concerns the "public/private," the disruption of dominant narratives of "I" of men and the masculine "I." There is also a temporal challenge, of moving away from simple linearity of the "I." Together, these challenges can be seen as moving away from taken-for-granted "gender power-coherence" towards gender power-consciousness. To address these kinds of question means interrogating the uneven non-equivalences of what it means to be male, a man, masculine. This is not easily reduced to sex or gender. Rather gender/sex, or simply gex, helps to speak of such blurrings.

In this paper I discuss some ingredients that may be overlooked in considering, or constructing, the mix of equality, growth, and sustainability. First, the mixture of equality, growth and sustainability appears rather differently depending on the scale and scope of concern (for example, global, national, organisational, personal and interpersonal). Second, there are a number of more specific ingredients that can easily be forgotten. These include: not just gender equality but also equality around sexuality; violence and violation; intersectionalities; and a critical engagement with men and masculinities. To neglect such questions may leave a stodgy and unresponsive mixture.

This article, celebrating 25 year of Gender, Work and Organization, reflects on some of the events that led to establishing the journal. It proceeds to consider the three central elements that have inspired the journal - gender, work and organization - and how they have become more problematic, perhaps much more problematic, over the lifetime of the journal. Indeed, paradoxically, these shift have occurred at the same time as GWO and the field of which it is part have become more established. Just as the field of gender and organizations has become more legitimate area of study, the concept of 'gender' has become more complex, more contested, less certain. This also applies to the notion of 'organization', perhaps less so to 'work'. The latter part of the article considers what happens when one views the GWO itself in terms of gender-work-organization analysis, and how such questions may develop in the future.

This chapter examines academia, higher education and science through the lens of critical studies on men and masculinities, through the interrogation of three key interconnected aspects. First, approaches to the study of men and masculinities are reviewed in terms of the main characteristic features of contemporary critical theorizing,research and debates on men and masculinities, including on masculinities theory and some critiques thereof. Second, applications that link academia, higher education and science to critical analysis of men and masculinities are discussed in terms of: a) the situation of gendered individuals, men’s individual academic identities and men’s gendered careers; b) how academia and science are practiced, organized and managed within academic organizations and organizational cultures; and c) broader questions of gendered knowledge, including the relevance of gender for the construction of scientific knowledge itself, in the research process and knowledge production. The final part of the chapter focuses on actions, at individual and interpersonal, organizational, and national and transnational levels of intervention in changing men and masculinities in academia, higher education and science.